These
appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Karnataka Administrative
Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, made on January 24, 1996 in Application Nos. 1405 and 1564
of 1992 and batch.

The
admitted position is that the Governor, in exercise of the power under proviso
to Article 309 of the Constitution has constituted, for the first time the Mysore
Agricultural State Service Cadre. Therein, Class II posts consist of Assistant
Directors, District Agricultural officers, Cotton Development officers,
Horticultural Development officer, Senior Assistant of Research Section,
Professors-class II, Superintendents of Agricultural Research Stations and
Agronomists and Assistant Soil Conservation officers and Apiarist. The method
of recruitment from different sources has been prescribed by the rules called Mysore
Agricultural Department service (Recruitment) rules, 1961 issued by the
Governor in exercise of the power under proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution which came into effect from September 26, 1961.

Therein,
25% posts of Assistant Directors are reserved for direct recruitment and 75%
for promotees from Extension officers (Agriculture). the method of direct
recruitment has been provided in column 3. Similarly, 50% posts of Senior
Assistant of Research Sections & Professors class-II are reserved for by
direct recruitment and 50% by promotion of Scientific Assistants. Equally, for
superintendents of Agricultural Research Stations and Agronomists, 50% is by
direct recruitment and 50% is by promotion from the cadre of Agricultural
Extension officers and Scientific Assistants.

For
the posts of Assistant soil Conservation officers, 33- 1/3% by promotion from
the post of Extension officer (Agriculture) N.E.S. Blocks who have undergone
training in soil conservation. For Apiarist, by direct recruitment or by
promotion of Research and Teaching Assistants in Entomology who have undergone
training in Agriculture for which there is no quota. Subsequently, these
designations of the officers have been changed by the proceedings as a result
of the mysore pay Commission report of 1968. The redesignated
posts have come into effect from September 23,1970. As many as 31 categories of posts have been enumerated
with re-designations in Class Ii posts.

Subsequently,
the question of inter-se seniority cropped up at different stages and pursuant
to the directions issued by the Tribunal also. In exercise of the power by the
Government have issued seniority list working out the respective ratio between
the direct recruitment and the promotees, as enumerated in Annexure I to the
Notification.

Clause
1 reads as under:

"The
C & R Rules of Agriculture Department came into effect on 26.9.1961 and
subsequently superseded by Notification No. AF 39 ADO 72 (ii), dated 18th August, 1976. It was herein provided for
recruitment to the cadre of Agriculture Officers to the extent of 50% by
promotion and 50% by Direct Recruitment. However, the said 1976 Rules have been
amended vide notification No. AAH 161 ADO
77, dated 8.9.1978 altering the ratio to 25% by direct recruitment and 75% by
promotion. therefore, quota for direct recruitment and 75% by promotion. therefore,
quota for direct recruitment and promotion during the periods from 26.9.1978 to
25.8.1976 and 26.8.1976 to 7.9.1978 is taken at 1|1 respectively and at 1:4
from 8.9.1976 onwards." Clause 5 says "vacancies occurred and their
regular utilisation for direct recruitment and promotion has been taken into
account while computing vacancies." In Clause 6 it is stated that :

"interse
seniority between direct recruitment and promotion in the block period is
determined based on the length of continuous officiation." Clause 9 says:

"A
gradation list of Assistant Agriculture officers as on 26.9.1961 was published
by the Director of Agriculture on 5th January 1979. Subsequently another rectified gradation list published on
16th January 1989 has been set aside by the
Government in G.O. No. AHD 45 AGP 89, dated 19th June 1990 and consequently the list dated 5.1.1979 stands restored
and has been taken into consideration while preparing the gradation list of
Agriculture Officers as on 1.1.1989." Clause 11 postulates the existence
of various vacancies required to be filled up by direct recruitment and by
promotion, as enumerated therein .

"The
vacancies utilised have been re-worked and quotas fixed. The Block-wise vacancies
and quotas for direct recruitment and promotions are as under:

In
Paragraph 13, it is stated that as against the quota of 770 for promotees, 1195
promotions have been effected including ISS list. Thereby, 420 promoted persons
have ben occupying the posts reserved for direct recruitment in excess of their
quota.

The question,
therefore, is what is the in which the inter se seniority required to be
determined and the posts filled up. As stated earlier, from 1961 to 1976, the
promotion in the existing vacancies between direct recruits and the promotees
had to be given as per the respective ratio which, for the first time, was
changed for class Ii posts by proceedings of the year 1976. The Notification
was issued on August
18, 1976 which became
effective from August
26,1976. Therein, the
ratio was 50% for direct recruitment and 50% for promotees. Subsequently, it
was again changed into 25% and 75% w.e.f. 8.9.1978 with b which we are not
concerned. We are concerned only with the vacancies that were required to be
apportioned between direct recruits and the promotees between 1961 to 1976. The
Tribunal in the order has held that it is a "no-rule period". In view
of the above position, the conclusion reached by the Tribunal that there was no
rule in operation between direct recruit and promotees during that period in
question is obviously incorrect.

Shri
S. R. Bhat, learned counsel for the respondents, sought to support the impugned
order on the ground that only a few out of 31 categories, enumerated later,
contain the specific enumeration done 1961 rules and , therefore, the Tribunal
was right in its conclusion that no ratio was in operation between the direct
recruit and the promotees in the respective posts during no rule period. we are
unable to agree with his contention. It is not his case that posts were
abolished and new posts have been created. It is seen that previously existing
posts were designated by giving new nomenclatures to various posts. Under these
circumstances, merely because nomenclature have been changed those posts do not
stand abolished. It would be obvious that the posts were existing and on that
premise the Government worked out the existing posts and apportioned them
between the direct recruit and the promotees on the basis of the percentage
prescribed at the relevant time. Under these circumstances, we are of the view
that the Tribunal was incorrect in its conclusion that there was no rule
operating during that period for reservation of the direct recruit and the promotees
in the proportion enumerated hereinbefore. The Government is, therefore,
directed to work out the proportion of the posts, in the ratios, as indicated
earlier, between the direct recruit and the promotees and then determine the interse
seniority on that basis, within a period of six months from the date of receipt
of the order.